Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

QM - Fact or Fantasy

Rate this topic


andie holland

Recommended Posts

John, have you read Dr.Peikoff's article on the analytic-synthetic dichotomy?

Also you should know that there are Oist who are familiar with epistemology enough to realize that "space-time" is not a substance and that any theory that presupposes this is philosophically corrupt nonsense. See David Harriman's lecture 4 from The Philosophical Corruption of Physics.

Okay, then, Einstein's General relativity is philosophical nonsense:

 

On the left side of the equation you have a mathematical picture of spacetime that causes accelerated particles, described in the right side, to alter their initial direction and momentum

 

Likewise, the best analogy we have is that said particles bend spacetime. This means that if we put different numbers on the right side, the left will change, too, just like any other equation.

 

This, i'm afraid, is as close to 'substance' as you can get. Other wise, you'd have non-substantial left-hand whatevers effectively causing admittedly substantial stuff to alter speed and direction.  

 

Corruption, indeed.

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1.  Mathematics is derived from data that has been codified into  principles, which in mathematics is called theorems and such (sorry, been while). Simply put, man did not learn 1+1=2 because it was revealed through some revelation or built in his DNA then build from there. He observed it then drew conclusion, which goes for most of science outside mystic/modern methods that do just that (Example - God is given so I go looking for prof).
 
2. There is no problem with induction.  
 
As for your justification, it simply shows someone using induction poorly while dropping context on other facts that they know, for example human free will in the given example.  Failing to use all facts available means they failed to induct properly.  User error, not system error.  In fact, this is why I think most professors don't like Integration - It requires them to use their mind and be open to the fact that they may make a mistake and have to start again. 
 
3. Thought experiments work to a point of offering creative thoughts but they still have to be observed then data drawn from observation and honestly tested against all known knowledge - See point number 2.  When you don't do this you get ID or cats who can be alive and dead at the same time, and other such nonsense. 
 
4.  To require every lead known and unknown answered is to demand omniscience and omnipotence.  Or to put it simply - Because we are not God we cannot learn through observation.  The amount of data required to induct is determined by you based on your knowledge known and data required to make the logical connection.  It also requires you to understand that it is within all data known and can be modified later when more knowledge is know.  
 
Example: Observation shows that water boils at 100c.  I do not need to observe this a million time in every conceivable way to prove it.  It happens repeatedly within x time and I can reasonable confirm that water boils at 100c.  Later on someone tells me they were visiting friends on Mount McKinley and it boiled at a lower temperature.  After a lot of investigation I learn that water boil at different temperatures relative to sea level.  Is my original point wrong?  No - It is still right, but now I know more about water.  Scientists, after a lot of observation and data collecting resolve how boiling temp changes relative to sea level then come up with a means of tracking this for all heights relative to sea level versus the substance (which I believe is known as a bar).  
 
Moral of the story - Induction requires one to think and then it requires one to be honest and update as needed when more information becomes available. 
 
5.  Really - I learned how to use a lever or the wheel instinctively like a bolt from heaven?  No observation or trial and error needed?  COME ON. 
 
6.  This just a reiteration for the thought experiment under number 3 above.  

 

Re your #3: Schrodinger, with his cat story, was trying to illustrate that the measurement problem is real. We cannot observe quanta, rather only observe their effects.

 

Indeed, many, in 1927, accepted your remark that QM must be nonsense. What's changed is simply the massive accumulation of data as to the effects of quanta. 

 

In terms of epistemology, this seems to have altered the views of 'foundationalism' to a far more 'coherentist' position. We're far better off with QM than without.

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re your #3: Schrodinger, with his cat story, was trying to illustrate that the measurement problem is real. We cannot observe quanta, rather only observe their effects.

 

Indeed, many, in 1927, accepted your remark that QM must be nonsense. What's changed is simply the massive accumulation of data as to the effects of quanta. 

 

In terms of epistemology, this seems to have altered the views of 'foundationalism' to a far more 'coherentist' position. We're far better off with QM than without.

 

AH

 

I am not taking issue with QM and I know it was an analogy. 

 

My issue is that it is a poor analogy to explain a phenomena.  If your going to explain something with an analogy you use something that is real, not something fantastic that even religious fundamentalists wouldn't use (that just say it's one or the other and it's Gods' will).  The idea that a cat is to be treated as dead AND alive until you go look is a contradiction on a embarrassing level.

 

Moral of the story - Scientists can pick real world example that do not contradict themselves.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not taking issue with QM and I know it was an analogy. 

 

My issue is that it is a poor analogy to explain a phenomena.  If your going to explain something with an analogy you use something that is real, not something fantastic that even religious fundamentalists wouldn't use (that just say it's one or the other and it's Gods' will).  The idea that a cat is to be treated as dead AND alive until you go look is a contradiction on a embarrassing level.

 

Moral of the story - Scientists can pick real world example that do not contradict themselves.  

The QM Gang were a bunch of rowdy 25-35 year olds who clearly understood that, by the classical standards of the time, their stuff was way out of bounds. Hand-selected by Bohr, they were all mischievous geniuses who, for example, on one Christmas Eve put on a Faust-inspired comedy in which Einstein was the local rag-picker and Bohr himself was portrayed as a dotting old fool. 

 

In brief, Schrodinger's Cat was intended to provoke. It says. 'Well, if we look, we kill the quanta (which of course, is true). So all we have to go on is padoodles on paper that conform to rather detailed measurement. except when they don't which is okay because it's all about...probabilities...just like the cat!

 

Against the nay-sayers of his epoch, Schrodinger clearly enjoyed giving it back to them with an embarrassing paradox. If they found it logically senseless, so much the better. The only importance to the QM Gang is that it worked.

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JM,

 

You go too far when you say, "There is near consensus that Godel's theorem brought an end to formalism, the idea that mathematics was purely the extrapolation of man-made concepts." Rather, Godel showed that mathematics contains theorems that cannot be proved through mathematical logic, and that mathematics cannot be used to prove its own consistency. Neither of those mean that mathematics is not purely man-made. Yes, Godel's work demonstrated that Hilbert's second problem of finding a complete consistent set of axioms for mathematics was impossible. That was the end of Hilbert's formalism. That does not mean that mathematics was not a human creation. The parallel postulate and the continuum hypothesis were clearly human creations. While the parallel postulate at least has some basis in perception, the continuum hypothesis certainly does not. You must admit that mathematics contains concepts that are pure human creations disconnected from any perception. Just as there are forms of mathematics where the parallel postulate is untrue, there are forms of mathematics where the continuum hypothesis is untrue. You are free to choose which form of mathematics you wish to adopt. Certainly that freedom implies that these principles are human-made.

 

Concerning Newton, we know that his inverse-square theory of gravitation was first postulated by Bullialdus in 1645, and Bullialdus reasoned by analogy with light for which there existed empirical data. Newton had the advantage of calculus by which he could demonstrate that the inverse-square theory implied Kepler's Laws. Kepler's Laws were arrived at using Tycho Brahe's data and so were resolutely rooted in observational data and reams of computations. From Brahe's data, Kepler must have realized that the sun was not at the center of Mars' orbit and so Copernicus was not completely correct. He must also have realized that Mars' orbit was not circular, and in searching for an alternative to circular orbits his familiarity with conic sections gave him an obvious alternative to test. None of this would have occurred to someone who was not completely familiar with Brahe's data concerning Mars.

 

A priori knowledge is akin to Aristotle's understanding of science. He postulated that objects have an inherent velocity. In addition, he taught that in order to arrive at correct physical theories that it was unnecessary to appeal to physical experiment since pure reason was sufficient. Galileo proved him wrong. In advocating "a priori" knowledge, you are advocating a regression to pre-Galilean, Aristotelian rationalism that would set us back into the dark ages.

 

There are within Objectivism certain concepts that are taken a priori, such as logic and causality. Mathematics is not a priori in the sense you suggest.

Aleph.

 

With your kind indulgence, permit me to post my remarks on Godel as a response to your missive. You've raised many other excellent points, as well:

 

* Newton had an advantage because he created a calculus. This was used to demonstrate that 'heavenly bodies' follow the same rule as a falling apple. Our modern calculus is a doable update, thanks to Leibniz.

 

** Godel viewed math as die-hard Platonist, believing that maths existed in the real of pure ideas which, according to the Platonist tradition, only very special people could grasp. The rest of us, sadly, are left with empiricism and induction.

 

Therefore, Godel's discovery that maths do not hold together in one, big happy way severely placed the Platonic pov in serious jeopardy. After all, ideas are what they are because the messy real world is merely their shadow! So now, if the ideal world is messy, too, what's the use in having one!

 

So in terms of history, yes, Hilbert was answered. but also Russell, Whitehead, and Wittgenstein #1. This is because, traditionally, logic was built upon the certainties of math--but  now it cannot. Moreover, we cannot construct a language of logic that's based upon mathematical axioms, and the world is always more than the case is.

 

But then again, there are other views of Math in which Godel is irrelevant. 

 

For example, the Kantian a prioris of space and time can easily be shown to generate all maths. In other words, it's all in our heads, and the interior collision of thought categories with innate imagination will naturally produce  a rather messy outcome.

 

The we have Naturalism--Quine and Maddy, for example. We discover measurement properties of things, then abstract them as math-objects. These abstractions, when passed on, can be used as a template for measuring other things. again, we have a fairly messy state of affairs that doesn't really lend itself to forming high-level axioms.

 

This tug of war to define the proper epistemology of high(er) level statements is called 'Naturalism', versus an ostensible 'nominalism'.

 

To this end, a highly constructive method for grouping descriptive equations is by 'transformation'. In physics, perhaps the best example of this is the Weinberg transform that linked the field equations of Wlectromagnetic and Weak forces into 'the Electroweak'. 

 

Lastly, although it's fine to say that logic and cause are 'givens', in both cases there are huge debates as to what both and either consist. For example, to what extent does statistical probability indicate cause?

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

 

Lastly, although it's fine to say that logic and cause are 'givens', in both cases there are huge debates as to what both and either consist. For example, to what extent does statistical probability indicate cause?

 

AH

Logic is hardly a given. It was an intellectual achievement by Aristotle. Even the Ancient Greek notion of causality was not given, as in automatic. It was another profound development that arose from their culture.

 

If someone were to tell me that they derived that x caused y relying solely on statistical probability, I'd have to conclude they have not discovered how to go about integrating their knowledge using a process of non-contradictory identification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logic is hardly a given. It was an intellectual achievement by Aristotle. Even the Ancient Greek notion of causality was not given, as in automatic. It was another profound development that arose from their culture.

 

If someone were to tell me that they derived that x caused y relying solely on statistical probability, I'd have to conclude they have not discovered how to go about integrating their knowledge using a process of non-contradictory identification.

QM tells us that any sense of cause within the QM context is strictly a statistical probability. They would admit that they have failed to integrate their knowledge by using a process of non-contadictory identification.

 

To illustrate this, they will tell you the story of Schrodinger's cat...

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QM tells us that any sense of cause within the QM context is strictly a statistical probability. They would admit that they have failed to integrate their knowledge by using a process of non-contadictory identification.

 

To illustrate this, they will tell you the story of Schrodinger's cat...

 

AH

 

As Harriman documents in The Logical Leap:

 

 

The probablities are regarded as a complete discription of the physical system. It is reality that is regarded as incomplete, or in the words of mathematical physicist Herman Weyl,"afflicted with a sort a vageness". Causality is supposedly inapplicable to this "vauge", unreal quantum world. "Through quantum mechanics", wrote Werner Heisenberg, "the invalidity of the law of causation is definately established."

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QM tells us that any sense of cause within the QM context is strictly a statistical probability. They would admit that they have failed to integrate their knowledge by using a process of non-contadictory identification.

 

To illustrate this, they will tell you the story of Schrodinger's cat...

 

AH

QM tells us this. The Bible tells us that. Atlas Shrugged tells us the other thing.

 

So what? Do any of these endow anyone with the ability to discern truth from falsehood?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone were to tell me that they derived that x caused y relying solely on statistical probability, I'd have to conclude they have not discovered how to go about integrating their knowledge using a process of non-contradictory identification.

I'm don't see this as the case.   In Statistical Mechanics,  probability mathematics is used to understand the behavior of volumes of gas as a whole in lieu of modeling the behavior of each and every atom.

 

Edit:

Do you believe that we will ever (and I mean 10,000+ years from now) be able to identify which of the 15 or so variables did cause, or will cause, a coin to land heads instead of tails?  Or is the most we can say before hand is that there is a 50/50 chance that the outcome will be heads or tails.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm don't see this as the case.   In Statistical Mechanics,  probability mathematics is used to understand the behavior of volumes of gas as a whole in lieu of modeling the behavior of each and every atom.

 

Edit:

Do you believe that we will ever (and I mean 10,000+ years from now) be able to identify which of the 15 or so variables did cause, or will cause, a coin to land heads instead of tails?  Or is the most we can say before hand is that there is a 50/50 chance that the outcome will be heads or tails.

I'll address the latter point in the following manner. Does the inability to do so invalidate either the law of identity or causality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QM tells us this. The Bible tells us that. Atlas Shrugged tells us the other thing.

So what? Do any of these endow anyone with the ability to discern truth from falsehood?

Speaking as a litchick Atlas gives us literary truths that are important.

Speaking with far less authority as one who has a strong foundation in science, QM gives us scientific truths as to how really small thingamapoos behave.

The Bible purports to give us knowledge of god. But unlike science or lit, no one has proven that god exists.

Therefore, i'm an anti-theist; Other than for dyslexics for whom the word is 'dog' spelled backwards, goddish questions are not worth the effort of serious thought.

AH

andie holland to Plasmatic:

 

As Harriman documents in The Logical Leap:

Tell me more about Harriman's take on this...

 

New Buddha to dream_weaver:

 

I'll address the latter point in the following manner. Does the inability to do so invalidate either the law of identity or causality?

Not at all.

 

andie holland to Plasmatic:

 

I said:

It occured to me that it can be interpreted that I I impute the non-propositional type of foundationalism of Oism to foundationalism as such. I should have said:

"That is, in the Oist type of foundationalism there is at the bottom of all knowledge a type of justification that is non-propositional which serves as the irreducible base on which "proof" rests

If you say that certain foundations are non-propositional, then you've returned to Plato's nous.

Socrates replied to Alcibiades that only the wise can grasp pure, (non-propositional) ideas. So all you're saying is that Objectivism accords you the same privilege.

AH

andie holland to dream_weaver: 

 

QM tells us that any sense of cause within the QM context is strictly a statistical probability. They would admit that they have failed to integrate their knowledge by using a process of non-contadictory identification.

To illustrate this, they will tell you the story of Schrodinger's cat...

AH

New Buddha to andie holland:

Andie,

Do you agree with their interpretation that the use of probabilistic models is a failure "to integrate their knowledge by using a process of non-contradictory identification" ?

 

anide holland to New Buddha

 

Andie,

Do you agree with their interpretation that the use of probabilistic models is a failure "to integrate their knowledge by using a process of non-contradictory identification" ?

First of all, 'their' interpretation seems fairly standard. For example, when I go poking around the Physics dept. here at Salamanca, I get the same response as back in Cambridge: "Probability is what we've been doing for the last 100 years. It's ingrained in all of our equations".

Einstein's critique of QM is the same as yours. So was Bell's, who offered his famous 'Inequality' challenge. Both, in their own way said, "Using probabilities negates the Law of Identification because saying A is probably A is fuzzy, at best. Therefore, what you're doing is junk science."

But Aspect's experiments proved them wrong, at least for purposes interior to the practice of QM in physics.Near- instantaneous alteration of one particle will predict the alteration of the second's trajectory (spin).

In sum, no one who thinks about these paradoxes will achieve a state of eudamia. Worse, they'll wind up taking sides. My pov comes from my BFF's dad who drumrolled me into Physics to begin with: Yes, there's a contradiction between philosophy and Physics. Learn to live with it!

Besides, none of this has much to do with the spread of the gazul into Al Andalus around 900AD, or that Cervantes really did know that the reconquista never happened. In other words, I've enough contradictions to worry about on my own!

AH

Eiuol to andie holland 

 

Speaking as a litchick Atlas gives us literary truths that are important.

What does this have to do with the thread? The thread is about "science is a priori". If you insist on playing your character Andie Holland, or Frank Harley, or your others that might exist, at least stick to the topic.

 

If you say that certain foundations are non-propositional, then you've returned to Plato's nous.

Socrates replied to Alcibiades that only the wise can grasp pure, (non-propositional) ideas. So all you're saying is that Objectivism accords you the same privilege.

AH

Plasmatic to andie holland:

Not at all. How is Plato's nous the same thing as perceptual self evidence possesed by all conscious beings? I dont use the term "intuition" and my understanding is that the greek notion of nous was a form of intrincisim about universals roughly equated with intuition.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QM tells us that any sense of cause within the QM context is strictly a statistical probability.

You shouldn't assign any "sense of causality" to QM. It doesn't describe the world in terms of cause and effect but in terms of exact probabilities. Formally, QM is an acausal theory. Trying to assign a "sense of cause" to probabilistic theories gives rise to the conclusion that the world itself violates causality.

 

 

They would admit that they have failed to integrate their knowledge by using a process of non-contadictory identification.

 

To illustrate this, they will tell you the story of Schrodinger's cat...

Is that a "We know it works and we are going to laugh at you with our genious in-joke till you understand" stance I see? You do realise that it is only an intimidatory tactic with no argumentative value?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The QM Gang were a bunch of rowdy 25-35 year olds who clearly understood that, by the classical standards of the time, their stuff was way out of bounds. Hand-selected by Bohr, they were all mischievous geniuses who, for example, on one Christmas Eve put on a Faust-inspired comedy in which Einstein was the local rag-picker and Bohr himself was portrayed as a dotting old fool. 

 

In brief, Schrodinger's Cat was intended to provoke. It says. 'Well, if we look, we kill the quanta (which of course, is true). So all we have to go on is padoodles on paper that conform to rather detailed measurement. except when they don't which is okay because it's all about...probabilities...just like the cat!

 

Against the nay-sayers of his epoch, Schrodinger clearly enjoyed giving it back to them with an embarrassing paradox. If they found it logically senseless, so much the better. The only importance to the QM Gang is that it worked.

 

AH

 

So he hated his field and was an elitist? Because anyone who rips his peers and gives absurd examples as if he was above everyone and didn't have to report facts pretty much tells me that.  

 

He might not have been but that is how that looks.  

 

Really - Is it hard to say "We cannot predict this yet and you have to look to tell?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

The lecture can be found here:

https://estore.aynrand.org/p/387/the-philosophic-corruption-of-physics-mp3-download

My comment about space time was related to your being confronted with a Objectivist touting the substantival interpretation of "space-time". My intent is to give a counter example of another Oist rejecting this nonsense based on the foundational nature of a normative epistemology. For detailed explanition of the factual, historical philosophicl basis of such pjysics see the lecture. Andie Holland's posts are a prime example of all the philosophical garbage that preceded the quantum mysticism of the new physics. That is, what Andie is selling is what Harriman calls the "quantum fairytale" that physicist were forced reluctantly to renounce foundationalism, induction, realism, identity and causality for a statistical-mathematical description of appearences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aow8hVpdSHQ

It was philosophy that lead to the current state of physics and not alleged experiments. The postmodernist myths that are being peddled by Andie are to be fought on philosophical grounds and until Oist wake up they will be pawns in propagation of this fairytale "narrative"....The primary obstacle here is ignorance of the philosophical history of the actors in the drama that unfolded in physics..

 

<snip>

Here are two interviews I found with David Harriman done by Jan Irvan associated with GnosticMedia with regard to The Philosophic Corruption of Physics and The Logical Leap

Part 1: (1:44:44)

http://gnosticmedia.com/podcast/GnosticMedia_PC_111_David_Harriman_lw.mp3

Part 2: (1:40:17)

http://gnosticmedia.com/podcast/GnosticMedia_PC_112_David_Harriman_lw.mp3

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You shouldn't assign any "sense of causality" to QM. It doesn't describe the world in terms of cause and effect but in terms of exact probabilities. Formally, QM is an acausal theory. Trying to assign a "sense of cause" to probabilistic theories gives rise to the conclusion that the world itself violates causality.

 

Is that a "We know it works and we are going to laugh at you with our genious in-joke till you understand" stance I see? You do realise that it is only an intimidatory tactic with no argumentative value?

There are many theories of causality that use probable outcomes. For example, in astrophysics, it can be said that in terms of Levy distribution,  the flux of the quantum vacuum will eventually produce a big bang, therefore cause a universe.

 

I did not interject either Schrodinger or his cat into the conversation. That the QM gang were a bunch of arrogant 20/30 somethings is a historical fact. Feel free to make of this what you will.

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking as a litchick Atlas gives us literary truths that are important.

Speaking with far less authority as one who has a strong foundation in science, QM gives us scientific truths as to how really small thingamapoos behave.

The Bible purports to give us knowledge of god. But unlike science or lit, no one has proven that god exists.

Therefore, i'm an anti-theist; Other than for dyslexics for whom the word is 'dog' spelled backwards, goddish questions are not worth the effort of serious thought.

AH

andie holland to Plasmatic:

 

Tell me more about Harriman's take on this...

 

New Buddha to dream_weaver:

 

Not at all.

 

andie holland to Plasmatic:

 

If you say that certain foundations are non-propositional, then you've returned to Plato's nous.

Socrates replied to Alcibiades that only the wise can grasp pure, (non-propositional) ideas. So all you're saying is that Objectivism accords you the same privilege.

AH

andie holland to dream_weaver: 

 

New Buddha to andie holland:

Andie,

Do you agree with their interpretation that the use of probabilistic models is a failure "to integrate their knowledge by using a process of non-contradictory identification" ?

 

anide holland to New Buddha

 

First of all, 'their' interpretation seems fairly standard. For example, when I go poking around the Physics dept. here at Salamanca, I get the same response as back in Cambridge: "Probability is what we've been doing for the last 100 years. It's ingrained in all of our equations".

Einstein's critique of QM is the same as yours. So was Bell's, who offered his famous 'Inequality' challenge. Both, in their own way said, "Using probabilities negates the Law of Identification because saying A is probably A is fuzzy, at best. Therefore, what you're doing is junk science."

But Aspect's experiments proved them wrong, at least for purposes interior to the practice of QM in physics.Near- instantaneous alteration of one particle will predict the alteration of the second's trajectory (spin).

In sum, no one who thinks about these paradoxes will achieve a state of eudamia. Worse, they'll wind up taking sides. My pov comes from my BFF's dad who drumrolled me into Physics to begin with: Yes, there's a contradiction between philosophy and Physics. Learn to live with it!

Besides, none of this has much to do with the spread of the gazul into Al Andalus around 900AD, or that Cervantes really did know that the reconquista never happened. In other words, I've enough contradictions to worry about on my own!

AH

Eiuol to andie holland

 

What does this have to do with the thread? The thread is about "science is a priori". If you insist on playing your character Andie Holland, or Frank Harley, or your others that might exist, at least stick to the topic.

 

Plasmatic to andie holland:

Not at all. How is Plato's nous the same thing as perceptual self evidence possesed by all conscious beings? I dont use the term "intuition" and my understanding is that the greek notion of nous was a form of intrincisim about universals roughly equated with intuition.

Eiuol:

 

Truths derived from a character in a novel--specifically, Galt on science--are literary truths, not scientific. This is because, to be scientific, all sides need to be fairly heard.

 

Plasmatic: 

 

Yes, it's more or less true that our term 'intuition' describes the Socratic of hearing mystical voices. 

Being non-propositional (as you  claim!), whispers from ghosts would be an admirable start in explaining the underlying objectivist truths. 

 

For example, how do we know that cause is so basic? 

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are two interviews I found with David Harriman done by Jan Irvan associated with GnosticMedia with regard to The Philosophic Corruption of Physics and The Logical Leap

Part 1: (1:44:44)

http://gnosticmedia.com/podcast/GnosticMedia_PC_111_David_Harriman_lw.mp3

Part 2: (1:40:17)

http://gnosticmedia.com/podcast/GnosticMedia_PC_112_David_Harriman_lw.mp3

Several points:

 

* The antics of the QM gang date back to 1920--ish. Yet Postmodernist philosophy is said to have begun with late Heidegger, 1952. Perhaps, then,  the writer intends the Phenomenology of Husserl and the ensuing movement of Existentialism?

 

** Again, Bohr's Kantianism was refuted by his student, Heisenberg, in 1927. Quanta are objective, not mind-dependent.

 

*** Regrettably, many Physicists --Feynmasn and Sokal, for example, return the garbage remark back to Philosophy. To this end, my own pov is each to his own domain.

 

**** In any case, calling the standard view of QMers of their own practice "garbage" is to presuppose the right of Philosophy as the alleged 'queen of the sciences' to make that judgment. Not.

 

***** I'll be happy to comment on your comments, but not those made in the video. So feel free to adopt a 'Harriman sez' approach.

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andie,

Please disregard the above post.

 

What I meant was:  What is you opinion regarding Schrodinger's being influenced by Heidegger's negative commentary on Merleau-Ponty's  review of the short comings of Husserl and how that might have influenced QM?

 

I really want to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many theories of causality that use probable outcomes. For example, in astrophysics, it can be said that in terms of Levy distribution,  the flux of the quantum vacuum will eventually produce a big bang, therefore cause a universe.

I'm not very familiar with what you are talking about, but if you mean to say that somewhere in the probability distribution there is something that can cause the Universe, then that is merely an assertion of the existence of a cause without specifying what the cause is. QM is different: in addition to not specifying what the cause of a particular outcome is, it does not even assert/propose the existence of such a cause. Besides, asserting the existence of a cause is equivalent to saying something like: "one of the three things in {C,D,E} must cause F". This does not mean that a "sense of cause" is applicable to all of C,D and E. Just because you don't specify what the cause is does not mean causality can be applied to the entire distribution: it is only applicable to specific member(s), whether you know which ones they are or not. You cannot regard the entire distribution as having some "potential" to act as a cause just because you don't know which part of the distribution acts as the cause.

What meaning of the word 'cause' are you using anyway? When I say A causes B, I mean that, within a particular context, all happenings of A imply the occurence of B. But when you say there are also some instances of A (within the same context) that does not imply B, then A cannot be a cause, a contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andie,

What's your opinion about Bohr's comment on Einstein's refutation of Heidegger's' comment on the Copenhagen interpretation put forth by Schrodinger?

NB,

 

Your facetiousness misses the point: the conversation began with a reference to Schrodinger. To this extent, the history of ideas is important.

 

The Copenhagen Interpretation was that of Bohr. Einstein disagreed. The Heisenberg equation indicates that both Bohr and Einstein were wrong.

 

Heidegger, as the assumed father of 'Post-Modernism', came much later. Therefore, the citation from Harriman is false.

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...